Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Aaron2016

Statues of Soldiers - Patriotism Nationalism

24 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Aaron2016
Posted (edited)

Last year marked the centenary of the end of World War One and the majority of statues in place all around the UK are of gallant soldiers and angels of merciful peace marking the heroic sacrifices of war and the cost of peace.  However, everyone I spoke to has a different interpretation of what these statues represent.  Some believe they represent the fight for individual freedoms (religion, lifestyle, gender), while other's believe they were fighting to change the world and tear down all walls, divisions, and create a global unified system that would in their view make the world better, while others believe they fought for other nations (strong protecting the weak) and those that needed our help, and yet for most of my life I have always believed the statues represent the people who fought to keep foreign invaders out of our lands and were fighting for our sovereignty and national freedom and to protect our territory from foreign aggressors and most importantly they were fighting to protect our moral standards and Christian way of life.  This led me to believe and follow a more patriotic nationalist approach to life in the UK, with sympathy to far-right and right leaning organisations e.g. BNP, EDL, UKIP and when I discovered that my Grandfather came from Eastern Europe I now feel like an outsider in the UK and the statues give an uneasy feeling that I am an intruder in my own country, and I noticed a number of minorities look upon the statues as a symbol of British imperial aggression and occupation.

Question is - what do the statues represent to you?  Is it better to view the statues from the perspective and demographic from those who lived through the war, or has the meaning of these statues been hijacked and modernized into a politically correct or incorrect perspective, both far-left and far-right?

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
hetrodoxly
20 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

always believed the statues represent the people who fought to keep foreign invaders out of our lands and were fighting for our sovereignty and national freedom and to protect our territory from foreign aggressors and most importantly they were fighting to protect our moral standards and Christian way of life.  This led me to believe and follow a more patriotic nationalist approach to life in the UK, with sympathy to far-right and right leaning organisations e.g. BNP, EDL, UKIP

Far-right, why? you can have these beliefs no mater where you stand, left, right or centre, Russia celebrates it;s war dead more than anyone.

 

26 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

when I discovered that my Grandfather came from Eastern Europe I now feel like an outsider in the UK and the statues give an uneasy feeling that I am an intruder in my own country, and I noticed a number of minorities look upon the statues as a symbol of British imperial aggression and occupation.

Really? how strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

For me those statues represent the struggle which people had, victories and defeats, unity and makes us remember what can be accomplished with unity and common goals.

What was behind the events, related to politics etc is not important to me so much because it was ordinary people on all sides who fought and gave their best - mostly believing that they are defending their homes and family.

It was so sad for me to see how many beautiful and grand scale monuments made to praise anti fascism and people's struggle are neglected in my country and ex Yugoslavian countries in general.

Now we have gatherings of both fascist and anti fascist groups around the same monuments, monuments which praise anti fascism only and it's sad, it's sickening.

I think that the meaning was hijacked as you say, at least in my region it was, well said :

13 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

the meaning of these statues been hijacked and modernized into a politically correct or incorrect perspective, both far left and far right?

That's sad really. Monuments represent something far greater than politics and interests which were the main reasons why many people gave their lives at first place and why monuments were made.

I can say that in the case of my country this regime, this bloodthirsty nationalistic scum that pollutes my country - they need to destroy and distort the memory of honor, struggle for peace and unity which has managed to build fantastic country which was respected around the world and had leader who was respected figure, Josip Broz Tito. As popular saying here goes '' this government could not even paint the walls of the infrastructure which Tito build'' and we are still using Yugoslavian infrastructure which was made decades ago.

Why? Because personal profit and success of political party is more important than everything and if we compare old values to these modern abnormalities it is evident that this new regimes are unable to do even 1% of what was done before.

By artificially making controversy about heroes from the past it makes their new political image better - if Tito was crazy despot it has to mean that these new governments are God given angels.

Accordingly, monuments are forgotten and neglected, with many of those decaying as much as the spirit of anti fascism is decaying and is being replaced by artificial, unnatural BS.

This picture below is from monument Sutjeska :

Sutjeska.jpg

Being there is experience which i can not describe, the humility, respect to those who fought... Tears because what it has became today...

There are thousands of similar monuments all over ex Yugoslavia but majority of them is neglected and damaged. This monument on the picture above was given some attention actually :

spomenik-sutjeska-ciscenje.jpg

And government called this ''restoration'' :( This was insult but i can not do thing about it and it's telling by it self. 

This same government has allowed our dignified army, Army of Republic of BIH (which was the only legitimate force on the soil of internationally recognized nation at the time) which had it's flag waved in 1995 at anti fascism rally in Paris - they allowed it to be labeled as genocidal when in reality there was no one single evidence of misbehavior by top level officials in the war. But when you disgrace parts of your history your whole existence will be one big pile of lies, invented to make aristocracy of modern age.

There are million examples of how people spit on their history and it's sad.

So, whatever the monument and whatever the story behind them on any side - all those figures and events were made and payed with blood of ordinary people who believed to fight for freedom for their family and nation and fear was deciding factor behind their conscription for most part.

Sorry for long post but this topic really strikes me because i live in reality when to spit on your heritage is considered to be positive. So sad. I hope that things are not this bad elsewhere around the world. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
Posted (edited)

The statues, I take it you mean of British solders were, I am pretty sure, designed to give remembrance and thanks to those who served in the wars. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and they can be appreciated in that manner by left, right and centre alike.

However, others from different nationalities may have different local historical and maybe not so historical experiences of British soldiers in their country's. At times these experiences will have been the exact opposite of fighting for freedom - more akin to Imperial aggression as you say, to them the statues are reminders, not by design, of less than glorious military activity.

As to your question, I would try to take the statues as intended by design, and NOT  ascribe unintended meaning whether pontificated by the left, right or foreign.

Edited by RAyMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Last year marked the centenary of the end of World War One and the majority of statues in place all around the UK are of gallant soldiers and angels of merciful peace marking the heroic sacrifices of war and the cost of peace.  However, everyone I spoke to has a different interpretation of what these statues represent.  Some believe they represent the fight for individual freedoms (religion, lifestyle, gender), while other's believe they were fighting to change the world and tear down all walls, divisions, and create a global unified system that would in their view make the world better, while others believe they fought for other nations (strong protecting the weak) and those that needed our help, and yet for most of my life I have always believed the statues represent the people who fought to keep foreign invaders out of our lands and were fighting for our sovereignty and national freedom and to protect our territory from foreign aggressors and most importantly they were fighting to protect our moral standards and Christian way of life.  This led me to believe and follow a more patriotic nationalist approach to life in the UK, with sympathy to far-right and right leaning organisations e.g. BNP, EDL, UKIP and when I discovered that my Grandfather came from Eastern Europe I now feel like an outsider in the UK and the statues give an uneasy feeling that I am an intruder in my own country, and I noticed a number of minorities look upon the statues as a symbol of British imperial aggression and occupation.

Question is - what do the statues represent to you?  Is it better to view the statues from the perspective and demographic from those who lived through the war, or has the meaning of these statues been hijacked and modernized into a politically correct or incorrect perspective, both far-left and far-right?

In World War One there was a huge wave of nationalism which swept through the population resulting in them signing up to fight for King, Country, and Empire. In World War two we fought Hitler not because we were against Nazism (even our Royal Family are photographed giving the Nazi Salute) but because we perceived him as a threat to the Status Quo.

He wanted to establish Germany as the greatest nation on Earth knocking Britain from its top spot. Germany to this day is still unpopular in the UK because while we won they still ruined our Imperialistic fantasy. Since then, we have had a surge of people who distort what both conflicts were about. We didnt go to war because Hitler was a racist. In fact, Britain was just as racist back then.

We didnt go to war because he was locking up homosexuals and criminals in concentration camps where they were being sterilised. Britain invented the concentration camp a few decades before, used to routinely lock up its homosexuals and criminals, and we used to sterilised and castrate them too.

We didnt go to war to save the Jews. It was only towards the end of the war that the German regime starting killing them and we knew little about it until we went in. Then it forced us to look at our own treatment of people over the centuries, including the Jews, and we felt sorry for the. So sorry, we recreated Israel for them and many of our people lost the stomach for empire building.

Those statues are simply to remember those people who died fighting for their country. WW1 resulted in a catastrophic loss of life here in the UK. Almost everyone lost at least one family member and the psychological impact that had resulted in the creation of these memorials and of Remembrance Day.

Those parties/pressure groups you mentioned are labelled far-right simply for being anti-immigration. It also includes others too such as Britain First, English Democrats, UKIP and even the Brexit Party. To date the Brexit Party seems to be doing the best but we have no real other alternative nationalist party at the moment. And whenever one emerges the snowflakes try and destroy it.

Edited by RabidMongoose
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016
45 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

In World War One there was a huge wave of nationalism which swept through the population resulting in them signing up to fight for King, Country, and Empire. In World War two we fought Hitler not because we were against Nazism (even our Royal Family are photographed giving the Nazi Salute) but because we perceived him as a threat to the Status Quo.

He wanted to establish Germany as the greatest nation on Earth knocking Britain from its top spot. Germany to this day is still unpopular in the UK because while we won they still ruined our Imperialistic fantasy. Since then, we have had a surge of people who distort what both conflicts were about. We didnt go to war because Hitler was a racist. In fact, Britain was just as racist back then.

We didnt go to war because he was locking up homosexuals and criminals in concentration camps where they were being sterilised. Britain invented the concentration camp a few decades before, used to routinely lock up its homosexuals and criminals, and we used to sterilised and castrate them too.

We didnt go to war to save the Jews. It was only towards the end of the war that the German regime starting killing them and we knew little about it until we went in. Then it forced us to look at our own treatment of people over the centuries, including the Jews, and we felt sorry for the. So sorry, we recreated Israel for them and many of our people lost the stomach for empire building.

Those statues are simply to remember those people who died fighting for their country. WW1 resulted in a catastrophic loss of life here in the UK. Almost everyone lost at least one family member and the psychological impact that had resulted in the created of these memorials and of Remembrance Day.

Those parties/pressure groups you mentioned are labelled far-right simply for being anti-immigration. It also includes others too such as Britain First, English Democrats, UKIP and even the Brexit Party. To date the Brexit Party seems to be doing the best but we have no real other alternative nationalist party at the moment. And whenever one emerges the snowflakes emerge to try and destroy it.

Very true.  One of the main reasons many young men went to war was simply because it sounded really exciting and they thought it would give them great respect back home and a sense of purpose in life with the feeling that all classes in society were seemingly banding together as brothers in arms to fight in a noble and righteous cause for King, country, and Empire.  With the benefit of hindsight I wonder how many would have been so willing to fight.  No doubt some look upon the statues of soldiers and argue that they were just young misguided boys who had no idea what they were getting themselves into, and if given the choice they would have thrown down their weapons and called for diplomacy.  Imagine if a nationwide referendum was held in 1914 and 1939 and the public got to vote on whether war intervention should be used.  e.g.  Churchill campaigning for war, and Lord Halifax campaigning for peace.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
3 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Very true.  One of the main reasons many young men went to war was simply because it sounded really exciting and they thought it would give them great respect back home and a sense of purpose in life with the feeling that all classes in society were seemingly banding together as brothers in arms to fight in a noble and righteous cause for King, country, and Empire.  With the benefit of hindsight I wonder how many would have been so willing to fight.  No doubt some look upon the statues of soldiers and argue that they were just young misguided boys who had no idea what they were getting themselves into, and if given the choice they would have thrown down their weapons and called for diplomacy.  Imagine if a nationwide referendum was held in 1914 and 1939 and the public got to vote on whether war intervention should be used.  e.g.  Churchill campaigning for war, and Lord Halifax campaigning for peace.

The realities of war dont hit home until someone is in a conflict watching people around them getting their arms and legs blown off, and listening to the shrieking gone wrong coming out of people who have had their guts sprayed across the battlefield. That sounds graphic, but war is horrific.

You cannot convey what war is like to people who have no experience of it. The young man does get excited about fighting for King, Country, and Empire, or these days for Queenie. Historically speaking, people are more inclined to fight when their very survival is at risk rather than fighting for Empire. But in WW1, a huge wave of nationalism spread across Europe and young men everywhere raced to signup to see who had the best and most powerful country. WW1 turned out to be a sad and tragic loss of human life.

I think WW1 could have been avoided with some common sense. There was too much eagerness to go to war. But with it occurring, I think WW2 then had to happen. The German people demanded a leader who would kick butt and its obvious they weren't going to settle for returning their country back to its pre-WW1 borders. They wanted to be great like Britain and would have settled for nothing less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
6 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

The realities of war dont hit home until someone is in a conflict watching people around them getting their arms and legs blown off, and listening to the shrieking gone wrong coming out of people who have had their guts sprayed across the battlefield. That sounds graphic, but war is horrific.

You cannot convey what war is like to people who have no experience of it. The young man does get excited about fighting for King, Country, and Empire, or these days for Queenie. Historically speaking, people are more inclined to fight when their very survival is at risk rather than fighting for Empire. But in WW1, a huge wave of nationalism spread across Europe and young men everywhere raced to signup to see who had the best and most powerful country. WW1 turned out to be a sad and tragic loss of human life.

I think WW1 could have been avoided with some common sense. There was too much eagerness to go to war. But with it occurring, I think WW2 then had to happen. The German people demanded a leader who would kick butt and its obvious they weren't going to settle for returning their country back to its pre-WW1 borders. They wanted to be great like Britain and would have settled for nothing less.

Yes, WWII was the direct outcome of the mistakes made during and after WWI. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
On 7/7/2019 at 10:38 PM, odas said:

Yes, WWII was the direct outcome of the mistakes made during and after WWI. 

But someone has to explain it to the Rabid that it was literal hunger in Germany that paved the way for Nazis, not the desire of the people to be 'great like Britain'. 

I'm not in the mood to explain anything anymore, I'll just drop by here and there and growl at people who falsify history :D 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
On 7/7/2019 at 4:57 AM, Aaron2016 said:

Last year marked the centenary of the end of World War One and the majority of statues in place all around the UK are of gallant soldiers and angels of merciful peace marking the heroic sacrifices of war and the cost of peace.  However, everyone I spoke to has a different interpretation of what these statues represent.  Some believe they represent the fight for individual freedoms (religion, lifestyle, gender), while other's believe they were fighting to change the world and tear down all walls, divisions, and create a global unified system that would in their view make the world better, while others believe they fought for other nations (strong protecting the weak) and those that needed our help, and yet for most of my life I have always believed the statues represent the people who fought to keep foreign invaders out of our lands and were fighting for our sovereignty and national freedom and to protect our territory from foreign aggressors and most importantly they were fighting to protect our moral standards and Christian way of life.  This led me to believe and follow a more patriotic nationalist approach to life in the UK, with sympathy to far-right and right leaning organisations e.g. BNP, EDL, UKIP and when I discovered that my Grandfather came from Eastern Europe I now feel like an outsider in the UK and the statues give an uneasy feeling that I am an intruder in my own country, and I noticed a number of minorities look upon the statues as a symbol of British imperial aggression and occupation.

Question is - what do the statues represent to you?  Is it better to view the statues from the perspective and demographic from those who lived through the war, or has the meaning of these statues been hijacked and modernized into a politically correct or incorrect perspective, both far-left and far-right?

 

 

What you said reminds me of the diverse beliefs of statues commemorating WW1 & WW2 in the U.S.   The only difference is that most U.S. Americans know their ancestors, grandparents or great grandparents came from another country to make a better life.  Your eastern european ancestors went to the UK for the same reason.  A lot of people are in the UK because of the Imperialism that the UK spread for a few hundred years but that is your history, and there may be shame in the fact of that empire tromping over many other lands and changing other's ways of life but now it is a different world because of that.  Why would you, as a second generation citizen feel like an intruder?  Aren't people still immigrating to the UK from all over?  Why do you think they are doing that?

As for the statues, maybe there are some historic records that you could look up to determine the original meaning of the statues.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
39 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

But someone has to explain it to the Rabid that it was literal hunger in Germany that paved the way for Nazis, not the desire of the people to be 'great like Britain'. 

I'm not in the mood to explain anything anymore, I'll just drop by here and there and growl at people who falsify history :D 

Germany became involved in colonialism. Claiming much of the leftover territory that was yet unclaimed in the Scramble for Africa, it managed to build the third-largest colonial empire after the Britishand the French ones.[15] As a colonial state, it sometimes clashed with other European powers, especially the British Empire.

Germany became a great power, boasting a rapidly developing rail network, the world's strongest army, and a fast-growing industrial base.[16] In less than a decade, its navy became second only to Britain's Royal Navy. After the removal of Otto von Bismarck by Wilhelm II in 1890, the Empire embarked on Weltpolitik – a bellicose new course that ultimately contributed to the outbreak of World War I. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
1 hour ago, hetrodoxly said:

Germany became involved in colonialism. Claiming much of the leftover territory that was yet unclaimed in the Scramble for Africa, it managed to build the third-largest colonial empire after the Britishand the French ones.[15] As a colonial state, it sometimes clashed with other European powers, especially the British Empire.

Germany became a great power, boasting a rapidly developing rail network, the world's strongest army, and a fast-growing industrial base.[16] In less than a decade, its navy became second only to Britain's Royal Navy. After the removal of Otto von Bismarck by Wilhelm II in 1890, the Empire embarked on Weltpolitik – a bellicose new course that ultimately contributed to the outbreak of World War I. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire

I said I'll just growl. In cute manner, for starts.   

tenor.gif

Because the point was screamingly obviously not in the fact that Germany too had colonies. After all, WWI often is portrayed as the result of disputes about colonies, disregarding all the other factors, such as English paranoia of competition in the neighbourhood.

Who financed Serbian Black Hand, whose fanatical member Gavrilo Princip, assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, thus setting off the WWI? If you know the answer and if you can admit it publicly, I'll stop growling. 

 

The point is in the fact that hunger in Germany, caused with sadistic need of winners in the WWI to make German people suffer, made that same people susceptible to Nazi approach. Colonies played no part and expanding Lebensraum as the part of ideology was not something an average person cared about. They did, naturally, care about suddenly not being hungry anymore. That's the whole mystery behind the initial support for the Nazi party. No one in Germany back then wanted to be 'great like Britain'. What a ridiculous piece of bizarre arrogance. 

 

Back on topic, the monuments should be attempts to keep the memory on those who deserved it alive.

In which case, I respect them. 

But monuments are often political and ideological tools, in which case they should be blown up, as it was the case with the portion of truly excessively numerous WWII monuments in my country. Those erected for damn good reasons at the sites that truly mattered still stand. As they should.      

Also, erecting more monuments today, that commemorate something that happened decades or centuries ago, which is already commemorated with numerous already existing monuments is outright bizarre and almost always meant to serve current political purposes. Has little to nothing to do with history, has everything to do with telling which party has nothing substantial to offer today and tomorrow, so they focus on yesterday. Yesteryear. Yestercentury. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

What you said reminds me of the diverse beliefs of statues commemorating WW1 & WW2 in the U.S.   The only difference is that most U.S. Americans know their ancestors, grandparents or great grandparents came from another country to make a better life.  Your eastern european ancestors went to the UK for the same reason.  A lot of people are in the UK because of the Imperialism that the UK spread for a few hundred years but that is your history, and there may be shame in the fact of that empire tromping over many other lands and changing other's ways of life but now it is a different world because of that.  Why would you, as a second generation citizen feel like an intruder?  Aren't people still immigrating to the UK from all over?  Why do you think they are doing that?

As for the statues, maybe there are some historic records that you could look up to determine the original meaning of the statues.

I live in Northern Ireland which is very polarized when it comes to national identity and the treatment of British soldier statues is looked upon with various feelings (good and bad) from each community owing to our troubled history and the statues were often targets of vandalism and bombings in the past.  Migration into our part of the UK is relatively small compared to mainland Britain and this makes every outsider stand out much more.  The identity of my grandfather has always been a mystery.  An emigrant seeking refuge to Britain to escape the war, or a soldier fighting on the axis side who was captured and sent to a POW camp in Britain and remained here after the war.  The uncertainty creates mixed feelings when I look at British war statues and even though I was born in the UK I just don't feel like I am from here and the uncertainty of not knowing which side my ancestors were on makes me feel that the war statues should really be honouring all of the dead on all sides, and not just one side, as it creates a very polarized feeling by honouring only one side and makes the children of the opposing sides feel more like guests, whether intentionally or unintentionally, it's just the uneasy feeling it creates.

I think a new memorial should be placed as a tribute to remember all of the war dead, so that in death they are all equal.

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
37 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I said I'll just growl. In cute manner, for starts.   

tenor.gif

Because the point was screamingly obviously not in the fact that Germany too had colonies. After all, WWI often is portrayed as the result of disputes about colonies, disregarding all the other factors, such as English paranoia of competition in the neighbourhood.

Who financed Serbian Black Hand, whose fanatical member Gavrilo Princip, assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, thus setting off the WWI? If you know the answer and if you can admit it publicly, I'll stop growling. 

 

The point is in the fact that hunger in Germany, caused with sadistic need of winners in the WWI to make German people suffer, made that same people susceptible to Nazi approach. Colonies played no part and expanding Lebensraum as the part of ideology was not something an average person cared about. They did, naturally, care about suddenly not being hungry anymore. That's the whole mystery behind the initial support for the Nazi party. No one in Germany back then wanted to be 'great like Britain'. What a ridiculous piece of bizarre arrogance. 

 

Back on topic, the monuments should be attempts to keep the memory on those who deserved it alive.

In which case, I respect them. 

But monuments are often political and ideological tools, in which case they should be blown up, as it was the case with the portion of truly excessively numerous WWII monuments in my country. Those erected for damn good reasons at the sites that truly mattered still stand. As they should.      

Also, erecting more monuments today, that commemorate something that happened decades or centuries ago, which is already commemorated with numerous already existing monuments is outright bizarre and almost always meant to serve current political purposes. Has little to nothing to do with history, has everything to do with telling which party has nothing substantial to offer today and tomorrow, so they focus on yesterday. Yesteryear. Yestercentury. 

Stop talking bull5hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
19 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Stop talking bull5hit.

How eloquent of you. Monumentally eloquent, actually :lol: 

 

Thank you for inspiring me to expand on my opinion a little:

There's an outright epidemic of 'politicians' and 'amateur politicians' who insist on sticking to the past, to the stereotypes, who see born enemies in particular nations and races, who harp on about one-sided, mangled and hateful versions of history, because they have nothing else to offer.

They need more monuments to 'their' side, in wars fought 70 or 150 years ago, because belonging to a certain group is what their otherwise pathetic platforms consist of.  

Sane people with at least average intelligence shouldn't fall for such cheap scam. 

There's more than enough of freaking monuments everywhere to anything, so how about spending time and resources on making the future more bearable, instead of attempting to mark the territory?

Besides, if you have to mark it so desperately ostentatious, it's already lost. Or you fear it's about to be lost, at best. 

Not that I mind monuments. They're not nationalist unless they're erected by nationalists who suddenly need even more monuments to hide their incompetence and plundering behind them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
19 hours ago, hetrodoxly said:

Stop talking bull5hit.

What an educated answer.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
50 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

How eloquent of you. Monumentally eloquent, actually :lol: 

 

Thank you for inspiring me to expand on my opinion a little:

There's an outright epidemic of 'politicians' and 'amateur politicians' who insist on sticking to the past, to the stereotypes, who see born enemies in particular nations and races, who harp on about one-sided, mangled and hateful versions of history, because they have nothing else to offer.

They need more monuments to 'their' side, in wars fought 70 or 150 years ago, because belonging to a certain group is what their otherwise pathetic platforms consist of.  

Sane people with at least average intelligence shouldn't fall for such cheap scam. 

There's more than enough of freaking monuments everywhere to anything, so how about spending time and resources on making the future more bearable, instead of attempting to mark the territory?

Besides, if you have to mark it so desperately ostentatious, it's already lost. Or you fear it's about to be lost, at best. 

Not that I mind monuments. They're not nationalist unless they're erected by nationalists who suddenly need even more monuments to hide their incompetence and plundering behind them.

Again just a post of hyperbole nonsense, nothing to do with the post i replied to about Germany and WW1, 'listen carefully' i have no interest in your ramblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
48 minutes ago, odas said:

What an educated answer.

 

It was a perfect description of the post i was replying to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

Again just a post of hyperbole nonsense, nothing to do with the post i replied to about Germany and WW1, 'listen carefully' i have no interest in your ramblings.

 

:D

Oh, come on, you won't surrender just like that. Resist a little. You can do it.

   

So, firstly, Germany is not the topic, though that country is a good example of tasteful commemorating of history.

WWI is not the topic, though there's oddly so few of monuments to the WWI, compared to the bizarre amount of WWII monuments, especially in Eastern Europe. It's almost like there was - god forfend - an actual need to keep reminding people the communists were the good guys in the WWII, probably to imply they couldn't be bad guys after the war was over. 

War monuments in general are the topic. 

The question are they patriotic or nationalistic is false dichotomy, in my humble opinion. They can be one of those, none of those, an unclear mixture of those and the way they're perceived can even change with time, which changes their purpose too. 

 

So, any thoughts on topic, by some miracle?  

Edited by Helen of Annoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
1 hour ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Oh, come on, you won't surrender just like that. Resist a little. You can do it.

What is this supposed to mean?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Very few war memorials in the UK have statues on them.  Most are simple crosses.  To remember those who died in the wars, without regard for why those who died thought they were fighting.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 hour ago, Essan said:

Very few war memorials in the UK have statues on them.  Most are simple crosses.  To remember those who died in the wars, without regard for why those who died thought they were fighting.   

 

In the U.S. the trend is to build walls and put names on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
On 7/7/2019 at 11:57 AM, Aaron2016 said:

Last year marked the centenary of the end of World War One and the majority of statues in place all around the UK are of gallant soldiers and angels of merciful peace marking the heroic sacrifices of war and the cost of peace.  However, everyone I spoke to has a different interpretation of what these statues represent.  Some believe they represent the fight for individual freedoms (religion, lifestyle, gender), while other's believe they were fighting to change the world and tear down all walls, divisions, and create a global unified system that would in their view make the world better, while others believe they fought for other nations (strong protecting the weak) and those that needed our help, and yet for most of my life I have always believed the statues represent the people who fought to keep foreign invaders out of our lands and were fighting for our sovereignty and national freedom and to protect our territory from foreign aggressors and most importantly they were fighting to protect our moral standards and Christian way of life.  This led me to believe and follow a more patriotic nationalist approach to life in the UK, with sympathy to far-right and right leaning organisations e.g. BNP, EDL, UKIP and when I discovered that my Grandfather came from Eastern Europe I now feel like an outsider in the UK and the statues give an uneasy feeling that I am an intruder in my own country, and I noticed a number of minorities look upon the statues as a symbol of British imperial aggression and occupation.

Question is - what do the statues represent to you?  Is it better to view the statues from the perspective and demographic from those who lived through the war, or has the meaning of these statues been hijacked and modernized into a politically correct or incorrect perspective, both far-left and far-right?

 

 

And the left in this country will encourage you to believe that myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

And the left in this country will encourage you to believe that myth.

Do you hate your left hand?  without the left the right is crippled and vice versa.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.